I found them interesting and wondered why they cause so much discussion. Two theories both sides unwilling to budge. So I devised an experiment and on a Christian blog I posed that evolution was true and on Ted as you may know I posed a debate on evolution and sided against it.

In both cases the arguements were fierce and hence my final question on the subject in TED. I appoligize for those who got heated and there were a few. I thank those who tried to answer.

So for this question I am wondering about why this topic is so heated? Your answers will help my report for school.

I guess the thing I find odd is creationists pick and choose the science that that fits their religious beliefs. They are generally okay with electricity, optics, chemistry etc until it clashes with their beliefs e.g. for yound earthers - the rejection of radiometric dating. Or that the light from some galaxies has taken billions of years to reach us.

But evolution, the foundation of modern biology, comes under special attention. Even though the Anglican and Catholic church are accepted the science to some extent. other groups, particularly evangelicals just completely deny this part of science.

They accept our DNA is similar to other primates. They can see the shared traits with all vertebrae, but because it does not happen on a human time scale, and their assumption is the bible is correct this block of science is not accepted.

So I guess for some creationists, evolution is a deal breaker. Others though can still find a way to believe in gods that are compatible with evolution.

But for me I guess it is kind of annoying that people who refute evolution are happy to take the benefits of science anyway, even things like testing on animals that works because we have similar physiologies, which science expains via evolution.

The other thing for me is how people can imagine a god created the entire universe with us the focus on this little speck. That all animals survive by eating other living things. The rutting to make babies. Growing old and dying. It is just so earthy and brutal and natural. Nothing divine whatsoever.

And then we see the tree of life mapped out, the fossils, evolution just makes sense. So it is kind of frustrating when it seems so obvious now we have the answer.

Finally, evolution is well established science. Not the origin of life, but evolution. Its like people saying pluto does not orbit the sun.

Oct 18 2012:
we should be the creators of science ,not the benifits of science ,if we want to earn more money and have a huge wealth ,think if we creat we are the creator of markets .if we are the benifits of it ,we are the consumers of it , one pay ,one get .

Comment deleted

Oct 19 2012:
John Lennox on one side ... hum, "mathematician," "philosopher" of science (riiiiiiight!), on the other actual scientists, much closer to the problems that relate to life and the origins of anything, like thousands of physicists, of biologists, of molecular biologists, geologists, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Lots of actual philosophers of science too. Hum, I would think that Lennox is completely wrong. Of course, not only is the weight of actual scientists heavier, the evidence is what matters the most, and Lennox is just wrong. Not only that, I know the scientific fields myself, and I know directly that Lennox is wrong. So, from me to the many scientists who actually know what they are talking about, to the evidence and the proper understanding of the sciences involved, against this boring ignorant. Science wins hands down.

Oct 19 2012:
yeah logical. let list lennox as an authority on the subject, but declare our right to ignore the hundreds of thousands of scientists on the other side of the debate. talk about double standards.

Oct 19 2012:
Well Don, before I posted my comment above, I went and looked at what this Lennox has done. He does not have a lot of the math online. The little math he has does not make him an expert in statistics, physics, biology, or anything scientific. At least not in the sciences that matter in this "debate." On his "philosophical" side, I saw not a single thing about philosophy of science, but lots of the typical rhetorical Christian apologetics. Took a look at a supposed "debate" between him and Dawkins, for example, and while Dawkins was not precisely brilliant, all Lennox was doing was rhetorical after rhetorical point. "Christians don't really believe that," some beautified version of the sacrifice, and on. The same old and malicious point that it is all a matter of interpretation and worldviews. But nothing scientific, nothing of substance. All rhetoric aimed at the hearts, not the minds, of his flock.

So, it is not a matter of my credentials (which are in biology, which is much closer to the problem of evolution than anything Lennox can offer). It is much more a matter of distinguishing between evidence and proper knowledge on one side, rhetorical imagery on Lennox's side. I find science much more reliable. Therefore you can keep your rhetorics for the sake of rhetorics, thank you very much.

(Curious that you would not tell Lennox to give you the facts, not fiction. Maybe because you like his fiction then it's ok.)

Oct 19 2012:
I do not mind about Dawkins. Criticize at will. In that "debate" he should have started by saying, rightfully, that the questions were not related to the issue (god delusions). But he is not a debater. He is just a scientist.

Gold Medal on debating? I didn't know that debating mastery was conducive to truth. That science and evidence, if careful and reliable, are to be ignored. Would you illuminate my poor scientific mind? How would a medal on debating help me know that gods are true and evolution is false? The medal might pronounce me fit to convince people of whatever I wanted, that's what debating is about, but would it help me know something about gods and science? Please help me out. Thanks in advance.

Oct 19 2012:
I guess the thing I find odd is creationists pick and choose the science that that fits their religious beliefs. They are generally okay with electricity, optics, chemistry etc until it clashes with their beliefs e.g. for yound earthers - the rejection of radiometric dating. Or that the light from some galaxies has taken billions of years to reach us.

God made adam a full adult so he can make anything any age he wants. He created light so he can make it everywhere.

They accept our DNA is similar to other primates. They can see the shared traits with all vertebrae, but because it does not happen on a human time scale, and their assumption is the bible is correct this block of science is not accepted.

Similar DNA but as a true researcher in subject would agree the smallest difference can be a drastic difference. One single marker in the junk DNA has been proven to be the difference in different diseases and not so much junk anymore. I don't doubt the science just the assumptions.

And then we see the tree of life mapped out, the fossils, evolution just makes sense. So it is kind of frustrating when it seems so obvious now we have the answer.

The tree of life has multiple missing links, hence the term, and the fossile record still doesn't support many changes. So it is kind of frustrating when it seems so obvious we already had the answer.

I guess the thing I find odd is creationists pick and choose the science that that fits their religious beliefs. They are generally okay with electricity, optics, chemistry etc until it clashes with their beliefs e.g. for yound earthers - the rejection of radiometric dating. Or that the light from some galaxies has taken billions of years to reach us.

Oct 19 2012:
Quote => "God made adam a full adult so he can make anything any age he wants. He created light so he can make it everywhere."

I always found this interesting, in the book as well as in statements made in conversations. Adam was an adult, perfect, with a non entropic body, so why make him a male with male genitalia? of course god had plans but he trialled Adam, he made Adam name all the animals in Eden and then god felt that Adam shouldn't be alone which can be assumed that Adam passed god's trial period. What if Adam had no male genitalia but had a rudimentary system resembling the female genitalia without the reproductive system or skeletal structure. God caused him to lay down in a deep sleep and took from him a bone and created Eve. What if God restructured Adam from the ground up, deleting the perfection of the singularity and split the model in half literally. Any holes in this suggestion?

Oct 16 2012:
Because it's a fake debate. Creationnists start those fake debates. Perhaps they're afraid to read science books, so they poke the atheistic layman instead, hoping his dayjob and family life would have distracted him from remembering all the bits and pieces of something like evolution, and then they draw conclusions about the whole of the scientific institution.
Or perhaps they're reaching for education...
In any case, the heat comes from the fact that there is no debate of content in these discussions.

If at least one of the parties hasn't changed views during a debate, then it's not over. Nothing bothers me more than lazy Tedsters who chicken out of an argument right when the fun starts.

Oct 17 2012:
From a Creationist's point of view, the debate is legitimate. It's one opinion against another, one religion against another. One very recent belief system against one as old as the pyramids. And for the Creationist, one concept appears to make more sense than the other.

From an Evolutionist's point of view, the debate is not legitimate because Evolution is not a belief. It's a theory that's a work in progress, that's being criticized and improved constantly. But mostly, it's an explanation about what life is and where it comes from. So for the Evolutionist, Intelligent Design is not an option worth considering since it's not even pretending to be an explanation about life and its origins.

The heat in the debate comes from that difference in viewpoints. Creationists don't understand why Evolutionists are not open-minded to what they believe to be decent alternative theories. Evolutionists don't understand why Creationists believe in explanations that don't explain anything.

It's obvious, you have on the one side scientists working hard to discover how nature works and has worked. Figuring out some pretty amazing stuff by carefully gathered data. Trying hard to get the next generations inherit what we already know, at least the basics, so there's foundations for further progress.

On the other side you have people holding to old myths lead by charlatans. Charlatans who will deny any piece of scientific evidence that contradicts their old myths. Charlatanry that will be happily accepted by believers in such ancient myths. Not content with denying something like evolution, these charlatans will convince their followers that there's evidence for, say, Noah's flood, or that our planet is very young, all by twisting any scientific discovery they can to their own ends.

These charlatans want their myths taught in school instead of science. Taught as if they were valid scientific findings. They are so desperate to debase science, that they have evolved their strategies and disguised their charlatanry as much as possible. Trying to get into the science curriculum by little steps, none of them by actual scientific discovery, but rather courts, and laws, and rules that might open up a bit the classroom to teach creationism as if it were science.

That's why this is such a hot topic. Because scientists understand that the way to the science classroom is science, not politics and charlatanry. Because those charlatans accuse scientists of fabricating evidence, all the while lying to their followers and to society in general.

Oct 17 2012:
No there's not. If a scientist decides to start campaigning in charlatan mode against scientific findings that conflict with their faith, they are not practicing science, they are practicing lemon-car-salesmanship.

Oct 22 2012:
The debate is so heated, because how you answer this question can determine how you live your life and how resources (often tax dollars) are spent. I don't think both points of view can be right at the same time (unless you get pretty creative). So you're either "right" or "wrong" on this issue, depending on what you believe.

If you believe in creationism, you also usually (in my experience) believe a number of other things that go along with that, all mostly having to do with your religion, and that religion is usually Christianity. Why would you want your own tax dollars to go towards educating your own children about evolution when that is something you fundamentally disagree with? This violates people's sense of religious freedom.

As evolution is the prevailing official view (at least as taught in most Western schools), this would put the creationists in the position of having to fight for their rights, as they understand them. Such fights naturally lead to heated debates, and there you have it.

From the evolutionists perspective, the creationists are backwards thinking, antediluvian, religious zealots who are interfering with the progress of science, and they do not want their tax dollars going towards teaching their children someone else's religion.

Oct 19 2012:
"Why is there such heated debate over Creationism vs. Evolution?"

There isn't in the civilized world.

It's not an issue in Europe, Russia, China, Japan, Australia, Canada, Latin America, Japan, parts of India and the more developed parts of the United States.

Unfortunately their remain some pockets of religious extremists who keep making it an issue (because the truth scares them) in Africa, the Middle East, Pakistan, some other parts of India and the less developed parts of the United States.

Oct 16 2012:
I'm not much of a fan when it comes to analogies but let me try one anyways.
In your "about me" it states that you are a Nuclear Power plant operator.
You have a vast number of safety measures and procedures in place around the operation of this nuclear plant.
If a group of neo-astrologers begins to lobby the government and the education system that astrology is a viable alternative to predicting future events like earthquakes, tsunamis and nuclear accidents and it is superior to your safety procedures because you can't predict when something will go wrong, only react to it when it’s too late.
They further demand that it be taught in schools as an equivalent safety mechanism to your procedures and that it should be put in place in the entire nation’s nuclear reactor plant to better protect us from misadventure. They draw their authority from Genesis, statements by Mathew and the magi interpreting planetary position to portent the birth of Jesus.
The pro-astrology group forms organizations to slip "predictive astrology" into the schools and want to debate you at every possible time on the predictive ability of their science and the lack of it in yours.
You know they are idiots but every time you destroy one of their arguments, they simply rephrase it and state it again as if it’s something new. They begin to attack you in the courts.
You are forced to fight back, knowing that you are correctly keeping the country safe but at the same time appearing belligerent to this group when you debate and when you write books on proper safety procedures.
Do the deserve respect. No because they are morons and their belief system is absurd.
Can there be any real debate between the two groups. No, because there is no common ground. One is science and one is a delusion. How do you convince a deluded person that they are deluded.

Oct 17 2012:
Exactly what does that mean. What way. the way to learn about the universe?. I don't think so.
What truth. The truth about how we became to be on this planet? I don't think so.
I have a life that does not revolve around adoration of mythical beings.

Your's was one of the most ridiculous comments I have seen on Ted for some time.

Oct 22 2012:
Hi peter, guess we don't know. In fact I thought et tu Brute was made up by Shakespeare.

However there is much more evidence both of these men existed than Jesus. In fact there are no records dating back to when he was alive of the existence of Jesus. And as far as we know the gospels were recorded decades after his death. Must be good memories, or magic right, to get even the less fantastic details correct.

And then you have to decide whether you accept the magical aspects, virgin birth, water walking, ressurections, and claims etc with no compelling evidence.

Oct 18 2012:
WOW Gordon those were pretty harsh words. You know we always seem to pit Christianity against Evolution. You never hear how other religions view evolution. How many countries teach evolution in their classrooms I wonder? Gordon I really do think that calling others morons, because they view things differently than yourself is what causes these discussions to go nowhere. Belittling others will never gain you a positive response. Personally I believe in both Creationism and Evolution. I view myself as a very small being from a very young species, who knows very little. I believe that would be open mindedness with a dash of humility. I am glad to finally meet someone on TED who is omniscient such as yourself. I hope your next post will be the answer to String Theory.

Oct 18 2012:
If you would actually read my post I was using an analogy of an obviously debunked "science" of astrology as a stand in for creationism.
We seem to have a mental block about creationism that I thought could be addressed by looking at it a different way.
We may be a young species with a small amount of knowledge, but that doesn't mean that we know nothing nor that when confronted by a concept that we find uncomfortable to a pre-existing belief system that we should retreat from it to the supernatural.
You should get comfortable with the notion that the debate between creationism and evolution will never go anywhere because they are opposites. There is an abundance of evidence for evolution and none for creationism yet the argument that both should be taught for a 'balanced' view is repeatedly made.
They are also rooted in vastly different frameworks. Evolution is based on science that does not allow for an authority and demands only explainations that are falsifiable.
Creationism is based on an framework that relies on authoritation points of view and explainations that must be taken on belief with no evidence.
If you can have a debate within that framework you know something I don't.
I have no comments on string theory, I find the math too convoluted for me to follow.

Oct 20 2012:
Hi Gordon.
I have been following this "Creationism in Schools" thing from the UK.
There is a lot of talk about "religion by the back door" & such like. When I listen to the counter argument it seems that they merely want science in school to be honest. They want evolution to be taught honestly, instead of it being stated as fact. There is a lot of opinion involved with evolution. A evolved from B, B evolved wings etc. & we've got the artists impression to prove it.
Creationists have no interest in "Creation'ism'" being taught by folks who don't believe it; that would be totally counter-productive. All they are asking is that science, & only science, without personal prejudice, be taught to our youngsters. That seems very reasonable to me.

Oct 20 2012:
I would also like science to be taught honestly. However that includes evolution being a fact and not an opinion, that there is no supporting evidence for creationism or ID as it is called here, and that science accepts no authority figures whose opinion cannot be challenged.
There is no debate in the scientific community that evolution exists, there never has been since before Darwin.
Science is now exploring the causes and mechanisms.
Your statement that creationist have no interest in ID being taught by non-believers is unimaginably uninformed. They want it taught instead of evolution but will accept the current thin edge of the wedge as being taught as an equivalent theory.
My own point of view is that these people are insane or at least massively delusional.
Science is not a democracy and does not care about anyones opinion. It requires and relies on only evidence. All theories must be supported by evidence or they are rejected (or downgraded). For example, Newtonian gravity theory was disproven, however at low gravities and low velocities, it still works good so it has been downgraded. However, without Einstein's calculations, your GPS would not work correctly.
I require only that schools teach the truth as we know today regardless as to how much it disagrees with my own personal world view. Or your personal world view for that matter.

Oct 16 2012:
that conversation was titled "Choose Pro or Con and discuss"? i skimmed through it, and i found very little heat, and very high argument-to-heat ratio. it seems to me that you came here with a preconception, and you have written the conclusion before the test.

i also found misleading and dissatisfying that you attached the heat to the topic in general. like everyone becomes fierce and hostile, and no actual debate takes place. it is necessary to analyze the hostility or elevated emotions in depth. who commits that, in reaction to what, what is the nature of it and so on. namecalling is not the same as calling someone a scientific illiterate after illustrating he actually is a scientific illiterate.

we can only hope that your report will be more in depth and less flamboyant.

Oct 17 2012:
Krisztian,
That was my intent in the first place. As for the argument-to-heat ratio that was what I hoped for and was well rewarded. I may have stirred the pot from time to time. True that not everyone became hot but I wasn't truely concered about the debate more the social responses.

Oct 16 2012:
As a parent and a tax payer, I believe that schools exist for the purpose of education, not indoctrination. I do not want to have my (now) grandchildren) indoctrinated. I consider it child abuse.

The anti-intellectualism of the evangelical christians is a frightening thing to watch. I see it as a danger, not only to children, but to the country itself. America has already entered the dangerous realm of a christian theocracy. Those of us who are non-christians are forced to violate our consciousnesses in the name of this theocracy with its hateful god.

If christians were less intolerant, vengeful, pro-violence, and ignorant, I wouldn't give a hoot what they believe. When they force me to honor their God (whom they have shown me does not deserve my respect, let alone my honor), my basic human right to my most important freedom is erased, and I am forced into slavery.

Slavery is horrible thing to endure.

PS: Evolution is not a theory, and anyone who believes that it is is dangerously uninformed - a threat to all. Ignorance is not strength. It's a weakness.

Faith = belief in spite of lack of evidence.
Evidence does not involve faith. It stands alone.

There is ZERO evidence in favor of creationism. There is abundant evidence in favor of evolution, a theory, in spite of the fact that it may not be complete. Evolution would not be a theory if all of the facts were in. If all facts were known, it would be a LAW. It is a theory because not all the facts are in. ZERO facts are in favoring creationism, therefore it is not a theory.

Creationism isn't even a hypothesis because a hypothesis requires a propsed test, which Christianity hasn't yet presented..

Oct 17 2012:
Sorry, Ms. Lover, but there is no such thing as "an EX-christian". The reason is simple. God decides who will receive the gift of Faith and once it is given it cannot be lost. Christianity is not a human construct. Not everyone who claims to be a Christian is. If you are not a believer in the LORD Jesus Christ now, you never were, but you could become one if God so chooses. Ask, seek, knock. Peace.

Oct 17 2012:
(My apologies Edward for what I had written here. It was not a good way to convey the message. May I try and clean my act by saying that of course, I understand that you think this idea comes from your god, rather than from you, yet, telling someone that he/she was not a Christian is calling them liars. Think how you would react if somebody called into question that you truly are quite sure that you have been chosen by this god. That's it.)

Oct 18 2012:
Doesn't that mean that you let yourself be robbed of your beliefs. I never view any religion by its parishioners. Christianity is the same as it was and will be under its worst and best representations. That would be like equating everyone's beliefs to that of any president, and saying the president represents what all American's believe. The perversion of a religion doesn't make the religion bad anymore than the nuclear bomb makes science bad. Heck atheist have been responsible for quite a few deaths from Hitler to Stalin. What we have chosen to do with the gift of free will is our choice. By giving us that precious gift we have also been allowed to muck up, and misrepresent a deity's words. I have met those who represent their beliefs very well, and others who drive people away from "their" religion at break neck speeds. Fortunately I do not have to suffer fools. I can simply read for myself, and make my own conclusions. I am sorry for your loss especially if it was do to others mishandling of a belief.

Oct 17 2012:
The danger is not your freedom of religion. Te danger is in the pretence to pass religious beliefs for science. In trying to force disguised indoctrination into science class. The problem is the fundamentalist Christians trying to undermine this freedom of religion by despicable tactics. By introducing their beliefs to unaware children using tax-payer money. That's the danger. If creationists want to reach the science curriculum, they should use the proper channel: scientific endeavours, scientific findings, scientific discoveries, the long and winding road that other scientific findings took before been of enough importance to make it into science class. But no, they know they have nothing scientific to present, so they prefer courts and disguising their beliefs hoping that judges will not notice. How's that for danger?

Oct 15 2012:
I can think of two reasons. One is that a belief in this area may be one of the most important foundations of a person's life, so the issue is not some academic thing that doesn't really matter to the participants. It matters.

Another is that in this area, people often do not respect each others' positions. This often moves into not respecting the person who accepts or argues for that position.

Some people ignore those they do not respect. This can mean not engaging with them on the topic (which doesn't tend to create heat) or participating in discussion but not listening to or genuinely considering what others are saying. Appearing to engage but then not actually listening may frustrate the person who is not being heard, which may produce an aggressive reaction. The exchange may then escalate.

Others prefer to be aggressively disrespectful to those they do not respect for whatever reason. This, again, may escalate. Of course some people get angry whenever they cannot convince others they are right (regardless of the topic), or are quick to take offense, and so move the interaction from trying to convince with argument to something else.

I have to add that I have seen fourteen year olds discuss this subject (in a discussion involving both religious and non-religious youth) without anyone's getting upset or mean about it.

If this is really for school, remember what you are gathering will only be random people's opinions. If I had to write on this topic, I would look into the literature in psychology which addresses underlying reasons for aggressive behaviors or one-upsmanship. I would then take the case of this particular issue and analyze it using the frameworks/models I found in the literature.

Oct 17 2012:
Hi, James. I couldn't get this near the posts to which I was responding.

I did not raise the question of politics. I only replied to Ken's reference to 'their worldview party's election."

I don't tend to follow the creation versus evolution threads. I only commented early in one that you posted, saying that the fact that evolution isn't proven is not saying it is "out" as an explanation and remarking on the standard that replaces "proof' in science. When you replied just, "answer the question," rather than responding to what I had said, I knew you were not interested in considering my way of approaching your question and so did not return to the conversation.

From a research standpoint, do you think perhaps that the way you, the researcher, replied to posts in your thread steered the tone of the debate, and who would remain to discuss the issue, to confirm your hypothesis that it would tend to be heated?

Oct 19 2012:
Good to recognize. I mention it only because in empirical work for thesis research, it is important to describe in presenting your work how you as the researcher intentionally or unintentionally may have skewed the result of your experiment. By replying to many of the early early responses only with "Answer the question," you set a somewhat rude opening tone.

This practice of setting something forward (image/tone/suggestion) that influences your subject's behavior is sometimes called "priming."

Is there room for the militant mindset in a debate? regardless of what side a person comes down these minds are only out to absorb,analyze and repurpose another persons arguments for future reuse while sprinkling hints to use the debate as a personal campaign for their worldview parties election. Why i say this is because i fell prey to it and sometimes still fall prey to it though i'm trying to curb the secret converter and kick him to the side rather than have it subsume the human that tries to see all paths without partitions and try to stick to being courteous. There are many times i've allowed emotion to rule which only serves to teach you something about yourself and does help in self modification but i have come across minds that though extremely knowledgeable and successful and highly respected act in some instances like young adults, sensitive.

Oct 16 2012:
I think people who want to improve their arguments for a point of view they hold may legitimately use an informal debate as a learning opportunity to do that. Participating in a debate is a way of developing more convincing arguments for a position and also learning the strongest arguments for the opposing position so they will know how to critique those arguments the next time.

That is one way people can use debates to understand a point of view better.

I am not sure I understand the "sprinkling hints to use the debate as a personal campaign for their worldview parties' election," particularly in the context of James' specific question about evolution.

I don't think of debates between candidates for election as real debates somehow. There is too much looking to ridicule the opponent with little gimmicks, taking words out of context, and so forth rather than offering a glimpse into their real thinking and plans.
It's more like advertising.
I admit that I don't watch debates between candidates, because I don't like seeing people at their worst.

I agree that some extremely knowledgable and highly respected people can act like young adults. Some even ARE young adults!

Oct 16 2012:
Quote => "I am not sure I understand the "sprinkling hints to use the debate as a personal campaign for their worldview parties' election," particularly in the context of James' specific question about evolution."

Yes, this part has nothing much to do with James or even directed at him or you or anyone but i'm glad we know his debate material is for personal/school research, I wondered why his postal responses were somewhat clinical in manner in the other debates. It's just that when a knowledgeable member can sometimes wreck a beautiful post/all their posts by inserting a personal subtle/unsubtle remark about another group then they, to me, lower themselves, like i said before, I fall prey to it myself. I'm not asking that you agree with me Fritzie i'm just stating what i've personally observed and think you have far better perception than me and can see a totally different angle than most.

Quote => "I agree that some extremely knowledgable and highly respected people can act like young adults. Some even ARE young adults!"

Yes, I'm not use to dealing with such powerful minds even if they are young but i won't try to stop it if it is the way of the future, then so be it.

Sorry James if i've Hijacked for a small while, it's not intentional but Fritzies first post was thoughtful for me.

Oct 16 2012:
I understand what you are saying. I don't like gratuitous jabs at other people or groups either. In fact you have likely seen me question sweeping generalizations about, or condescending attitudes toward, groups of people.

I am with you that such behavior does not add to the person's credibility.
In terms of hyper-emotional stuff, I have zero temper, so whenever people start turning a difference of opinion into postures that are hostile on a personal level, I find it extremely unpleasant. But I know some people have big tempers.

I also really don't like when people ridicule others, though some people (including some pretty famous ones) obviously enjoy that.

Oct 17 2012:
Thank you for noticing this. In the debates I staged several individuals fell to this level many times. They repeatably stated their case and at no time provided help to the group discussion and were enraged when I didn't acknolege them within 24 hours. Or if they were burried in an avalanch of replies (and they often were as the debates were over a hundred of comments long in just a few short days). I'm still trying to establish the best way to catagorize them. My thesis relates to social media's impact on such discussions.

Oct 20 2012:
Creation vs Evolution. Two theories. Heated debate. Maybe not two opposing theories but two threads in a fabric of existential cloth. There was a TEDtalk a while ago about creativity. It might help here. The speaker pointed out that in ancient times ideas etc were said to come from the Gods i.e. to be inspired by an external source. With the advent of science during the time known as the Enlightenment, ideas etc came to be located within an individual person's intellect. Imagine the power in locating an idea. Locating an idea or thought process in an external, non-locatable source like a God is quite freeing and quite confining. Same for locating an idea or thought process in a person. It's about 'ownership' in a way. The scientific community is very hot on evidence-based ideas so any hypothesis has to be delivered via a replicatable experiment and the results debated. Unfortunately several phenomena do not respond well to this kind of analysis. I suggest creations like books, works of art, music etc definately don't. Words and ideas are cultural creations. You might like to look at George Orwell's novel '1984' where the author plays with the 'what if' idea of limiting a vocabulary to remove the potential for thoughts disruptive to a particular ideology. Passion is great isn't it. Certainity is death to creative processes. Perhaps your report might touch upon the idea of 'freedom of speech'. Your experiment was unscientific, there was no 'control' debate and too many variables. You might like to look at the scientific methodology in some of the social sciences and the use of 'case vignettes' particularly used for exploring lived experience in subjects like psychology and counselling.

Absolutely great book and it discusses something similar to what you may be searching for...

Taking from the book as well as what I can a test to:

As human beings we have a drive to want to know how the metaphysical works. How this drive was/is formed, well, that is slowly being illuminated today in cognitive studies. Yet, I do insist this drive exist.

With the anticipation this drive exist, we can assume easily why anyone would want to know how the universe began, and shall end (as well as other meta-questions). Now the debate at hand questions "why does one need to answer how life began?"

I argue aesthetics. It is pleasing to the psyche to imagine how we began to answer the rest of life's great questions. The Big Bang theory is incomplete, but said theory solidifies an image to those whom desire no higher power than humanity - life is random with deterministic natures. Creationism is pure theory, but the opposite occurs, those who hold faith in said theory desire a higher power to watch over humanity - life is determined with seemingly random natures.

Personally, I do not care. I only care because others seem to care so much about the need to know how life (or the universe) began. What cannot be mistaken is the fact we have evolved. Even if the argue becomes macro v. micro evolution - no one can deny we have evolved (and if they do, they are extremist and dangerous). So whether or not we are created to evolve by a creator, or are purely a random happening - how we began does not dictate where we are going and what we must do to continue our survival on this planet.

This aesthetic debate blinds us from what really matters - due to how pleasing it is.

Being fundamental here is selfish to me; as I know we are not the only life on this planet and in the universe, and if we were created; our creator(s) seem to care nothing about what we do.

Oct 20 2012:
I'll take a stab at answering it James, Physical evidence of investigation and logic is far more appealing than just a archaic book written by people from an age gone by. It goes against my core belief system but that is to me, a pretty good assessment.

Comment deleted

Oct 16 2012:
The heat, as someone said, is caused by friction. This debate is so basic to our human life because it really is asking, "do you believe in a God or not?

Fewer and fewer people believe in a God and part of that reason is the popularity of science. Science seems to have all the answers about this world.

It seems more an argument about whether there is just a physical world and thus no God, or also a spiritual world and thus a God. Many experiences cannot be explained by science. The usual response is Give us time.

That is how basic, and thus hot, the argument is. For many ages the literal Creation Story was the way to go. Now there are issues with several assumptions about it and for good reason. I do not believe the Creation Story has any connection or application to this physical world. it is all about the spiritual development each individual person can go through, if they wish (and God hopes for).

Science can get us to the moon, but only religion can get us to heaven.

Oct 17 2012:
To you, and many others, its may seems like " Science seems to have all the answers about this world."
This is a distorted, yet common, understanding of science.
Science never makes the claim that it has ALL the answers. Science has a method for covering information about the world, the scientific method. It is constantly moving forward and as such revising and updating itself.

Oct 17 2012:
"Science never makes the claim that it has ALL the answers. Science has a method for covering information about the world, the scientific method. It is constantly moving forward and as such revising and updating itself."

That's why the usual response is (even creating an apple out of nothing), "give us time"

Science has everything to do with matter ("this world"), it has nothing to do with life (and its possible purpose).

I have absolutely nothing against science, because I recognize its limits. Where science stops, religion starts and both should have a meaningful and respectful connection (being from the same Source).

Oct 17 2012:
You're not presenting a valid argument. We exit in a material realm. Life is a part of this realm. Science investigates it. Religions are based in mythology, a series of stories intended to explain our existence here.

There is no "religious method of investigation."

People get along fine without religion, try getting along without science.

Oct 17 2012:
I think it is our body that exists in a material realm. My wife had a NDE and agrees with me, there is more to us than the body.

"There is no "religious method of investigation.""
You're right, there is indeed no investigation of matter, or even the movement of neurons, etc. Because if we do something wrong it is our mind that is responsible, not our neurons or electrical connections. We have to pay the ticket, or go to prison etc. we can't send the neurons.
That being said, Swedenborg has written close to 30 books and all about religious experiences and investigations. In fact it is all so scientifically detailed and consistent it is regarded by us as the Second Coming of the Lord. But, that's just our opinion, there is no scientific proof of that..

Just a question about us and animals. If the body is all there is, how come animals with bodies consisting of the same kind of materials as we have, are not send to prison when they do something wrong but either ignored or shot on the spot? What do you think it is that makes us different?

Oct 19 2012:
Hi Adriaan, I’m open on NDE. Actually I am open on the existence of gods and goddesses in general. I just don’t think there is sufficient evidence to prove their existence. Also, as these beliefs get more layered with dogmatic specifics and supernatural claims, they get more contradictory and less believable. Instructions on facial hair, genital mutilation, what to eat, who to kill, virgin births, walking on water etc.

NDE is probably one of the best arguments for the spirit realm or an afterlife. Unfortunately it is not a slam dunk. In fact I suggest it is more likely a hallucination while the brain is struggling against shutting down.

My aunty had an NDE, while flying on an 747, and while she is encouraged that there might be something positive after life, it not the only possible explanation, and not definitive proof.

For myself, the closet I have come is a hospital stay for some major surgery. Whether it was the painkillers or body recovering from trauma, I had the most vivid dreams and hallucinations. Also, sometimes my normal dreams seem real, and in some I can fly.
I don’t find it unreasonable that the NDE might just be something going on in the physical brain.

However, I would also highlight that the best evidence is just these subjective types of experiences, where the mind is in an extreme state. For me that points to it most likely being mind experiences. It also highlights how tenuous the evidence is for spirit. A fair degree of faith is required to be confident, especially as people start to make specific detailed claims about the supposed spiritual realm. Which is one reason they often make contradictory claims. Its all subjective.

Oct 19 2012:
Hi Obey,
"NDE is probably one of the best arguments for the spirit realm or an afterlife. Unfortunately it is not a slam dunk. In fact I suggest it is more likely a hallucination while the brain is struggling against shutting down."
But if we hallucinate we don't see the truth or reality, that's why it is called that. But when someone can related what a doctor said or a nurse did, and they acknowledge that, it is real.

But you are still very much wishing for proof and evidence of the spirit. I have absolutely no problem with positive questions and concerns. It is a preconceived negative approach that makes a discussion impossible.
Over millions of years, spiritual instruction (Revelation) has indeed evolved and may indeed seem to have changed. But that has been more the choice of words than the underlying spiritual meaning. The Creation Story is an example of that. The Israellites and later the Jews needed a different approach, and structure of discipline, than the Christians do now in order to become better people. And that's what life is all about.

I'm glad to see you're open to a belief in a higher power, if I understand you correctly. No one is perfect or has all the answers. it is more like, as the Dutch saying goes, 'row with the oars we have.'
BTW my wife had a NDE as a young girl because of drowning and became frustrated with religion because no one could tell her anything about her actual and very real experience. Often she was aksed silly things like 'What did you eat, or drink' etc. Her opinion about religions came up one time and she said why that was. When I said that NDE's were normal and could be explained, she almost feell off her chair :)
Swedenborg wrote about them in detail about 250 years ago. I suppose that's why Dr Moody in his famous book Life After Life included a chapter about him. Googeling the name and NDE might open some doors too.

Oct 19 2012:
There is a neurosurgeon with a new book out about his near death experience, Eben Alexander.
The fact remains that we do understand how long term memory is produced from short term memory. What I am not seeing here is a discuss about brain processes. Sam Harris pointed out, when questioning Alexander's account, that the brain did not stop functioning, while Alexander was in a coma, and this is accurate, leaving the opening for further explanation and doubt about Alexander's story.
Other neuroscientists, such as Daniel Kahneman tells us that the unconscious mind plays a bigger role than we imagine. The focus here is the conscious mind, and that may be the error. Much of what flows into the consciousness starts in the unconscious. (see Benjamin Libet) I'll give Alexander's book a look just to see his appendix discussions. I did heard him interviewed and he was not informative or convincing. He has no proof, just a good story to tell. The bottom line is that Alexander's asking us to BELIEVE in what he cannot explain, and religion already does that.

Oct 19 2012:
HI Theodore, a near death experience is a personal experience and cannot be regarded as proof for anyone else. As is shown here on TED, even NDE's can be (mis)-interpreted by the one undergoing one. What only can be very important is the consistency of millions.

I do not see the brain as anything more than an organ of the body, and in this case a connector. Just as the eye does not see and the ear does not hear, neither is it the brain that thinks about our thoughts and decides to change the mind all by itself. To force ourselves from loving evil to loving good is no physical process. No marching neurons :)

You may have something there about the conscious and the unconscious mind. Swedenborg may have called them the internal and external man.

You made a good point "BELIEVE in what he cannot explain" "now humanity is allowed to enter intellectuallly into the realm of faith." ~ E. Swedenborg
So, would you agree that near death experiences usually take minutes?
How would you regard someone's writings about NDE's, out of body experiences etc who was a much respected scientist? Much respected by the Swedish governing body and it's kind and queen. Someone who had those experiences every day for the last 27 years of his life.
Someone who also had many recorded experiences in social settings which proved his spiritual connections were real.
If you'd like to check things out, his books can be freely downloaded from my website and others.

Oct 15 2012:
Simply, Creationism is about Faith. Evolution is about Science and free logic. With faith you are already in a mind set. With Science you are constantly searching. It is like saying, "why can't water and oil get together?" ...... Having said this, there is also and foremost a Biological explanation but, this will be a lengthy and a different discussion.